Maladroit

4 hours ago, Higgybeans said:

Technically. But I would argue Yukou's is worse. Sure Sonnia can discard all 13's not just one suit for example. But Yukou can remove that 13 from the game. This would leave me waaaaay more tilted. And as a bonus action it isn't impacting what else she is doing. For Sonnia you are manipulating your opponent's deck instead of burning the enemy and dropping pyres.

So yeah, they are different effects, but I would rather come up against Sonnia instead of Yukou....

True, but for Youko if you declare the trigger you have to remove a card from the game, so you are possibly strengthening you opponents deck if you only have low cards of that suit to choose from. Have I read that right?

The big one from me with Sonnia is the ability to manipulate the next card flipped in a duel and know exactly what it is. That makes Sonnia's actual attacks really shine - especially if you've already put.pressure on their control hand.

8 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

But blocking is what defines cover, meaning that it's got the potential to absorb some of the incoming fire.

It only marginally affects Shooting attacks, and doesn't care about non-Shooting, like Obey, so Blocking fits more into obstruction than concealment.

Maybe, but the fact that you can push through blocking terrain means that it does not have to be a physical object to be blocking. In terms of the rule mechanics I don't see any problem with blocking sply being dense smoke or similar. Anything that impedes your view of the target would reduce the effectiveness of shooting attacks. Anything that does not require the target to be hit by a projectile or similar, might not have to be so precise, you just need to be aware of the target's presence.

15 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

see, if that were the case I would have expected it to be Concealing, because it doesn't physically impede bullets. I think that the Decoys are probably just non-mechanical, Mannequins woodwork in the shape of a Human that Colette uses magic to make appear real. 

But blocking refers to blocking of sight lines, not movement of objects. You can push through blocking terrain but can't shoot through it because you can't draw a LOS to the target. Yes, most blocking terrain also impedes movement, but that is a separate feature of the terrain (impassable or climbable). Or at least that's my reading of the terrain rules.

32 minutes ago, Da Git said:

Very mixed feelings about Youko's artwork...

While I love it, it really looks like a Last Blossom model...

Which is interesting as the new Misaki Artwork could really pass for a Qi & Gong model!

True. Her old artwork was more in theme, but was a little strange too - she's pulling a sword from an umbrella but has no attack remotely resembling that.

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

@Axelst Even without trigger having my deck manipulated twice a turn would make me angry. 

Not as nasty as new Sonnia's deck manipulation at least. And if you really  wanted to you could do that at least 5 times a turn if you pair her with Lucius as the primary master and bring changelings.

Cool idea. My only suggestion is that I feel like "Deceit" fits the existing crossroads 7 names better than "Lie" (which is an act). 

On 8/31/2021 at 1:22 AM, ShinChan said:

Pistoleros becoming Death Marshalls with +1 to all stats that after killing someone they heal 4 and become Monster Hunters. Was this supposed to be intentional?

Edit: The fact that when the Monster Hunter kills someone, it gets replaced by a Monster Hunter, healing 2 and gaining Slow and Shielded +1, also seems quite weird and unnintentional.

Well the Death Marshal process does require a quite expensive OOK pick to make happen and then for them to hang around with each other - and you'd have to (Edit to fix) die then survive long enough to kill an opposing model to drive it through to the end of the process, so I guess it won't be common - I suspect that you'd really, really have to work at it to get that outcome. If so you probably deserve it.

The Monster Hunter replacing itself - again I don't know is a problem. It can only happen when you only have one monster hunter on the board and you'd have to choose to replace (you can just take the heal without replacing) which I guess gets you a small reposition, but they already have deadly pursuit. And again this is only going to come up once you've killed you second model with this summons, so I'm guessing not terribly often.

Interesting - apart from you taking Ryle, were a lot of DMH masters taken - I can imagine someone enjoying the opportunity to take their fave master?

1 hour ago, solkan said:

. . . 

2.  Probably you don't have to replace to get the Heal 2.  Because it's "When... this model may X.  Then Y." instead of "... this model may X.  If it does so, Y."

So...  

Seems right, you get to choose to replace. Then heal 2 ("This model") regardless of choice (or lack of choice if two monster hunters are already out). Maybe you might choose to stay a Pistolero if you needed a third AP in the last turn? Kill a model (unlikely) get a scheme marker, move, drop/pick up second marker.

Really happy, first Guild master I'm genuinely excited about. Which is a bit weird, but I think it's because I was already playing Hoffman, Sonnia and Justice. So I was happy with those, but this one has me excited to get Perdita on the table where I wasn't that interested before. Perdita looks fun and I really like that it makes (some) of her keyword models really useful as well. This is what I had hoped for out of these releases. Winter themed model is nice too (well the art is anyway).

2 minutes ago, clockworkspide said:

Technically it exists...as the Mindless Zombie's self-move tactical action.

Yeah, needs a new name, but I like the idea of them stopping to eat when a model is killed.

2 hours ago, 4thstringer said:

Ran my second game with Hoff 2 tonight.  Despite losing Howard before he activated to kaeris and some tough flips, it ended up being a pretty good win for me.  Hoff controls space and positioning really well with his durability, 50mm base and great reach.

Have not tried it yet, but my instinct is to switch to more ranged options like Mellisa so I can park nearer to the new pylons and use the hunters/peacekeeper to pull models towards the crew. Are you finding that you aren't bubbling as much or have switched your crew around in some way?

1 hour ago, 50 SS Enforcer said:

Ability wise I would love to see explosive demise (tnt zombies) at some point. Although they would need to be balanced with Anna in mind. 

The action I want to see in ressers the most is Wong’s launch into space. Corpse delivery system with pin point accuracy and ranged scheme marker placement in a faction with not much (totems or masters usually have the ranged placement).

What are we all looking for?

Thematically: Brainsssss. Model may gain slow and heal 2 on all Zombie keyword if a model is killed within engagement. Can't really see this fitting any master than Nicodem though - maybe Seamus? 

1 hour ago, theamazingmrg said:

Of the 3 unrevealed Arcanist Masters, I think the most likely pairings are:

 

Colette: Zipp or Parker, playing into her smuggler background (Both those Masters share Bayou Smuggler, after all).

Sandeep: Basse (Wind Golem, as mentioned) or Brewmaster (Poison/Whiskey Golem/Gamin connection)

Rasputina: Euripides because of the Ice Pillars.

 

Colette and Rasputina I would be fine with either, but Sandeep I don't want paired with either of those Masters (even though they make sense given the connections between the crews).  I want Basse paired with Ulix to give him another Beast so that he can get some use out of Crockett, and Brewmaster I want paired with McMourning, simply because a friend pointed out how cool it would be to to have a drunken Gremlin surgeon Enforcer!

 

The other option for Sandeep, which could be cool, is English Ivan, with some kind of shadow Elemental tying them together.

I can't think of a better option for Raspy than Euripides. Thematically Sandeep and Shenlong kind of fit - I could see a new monk type model fitting into both crews. I like Colette with Lynch, but who knows what her alternate personality might be.

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

This is going to be a whole "another" can of worms in a minute - except this time it will be "different". 

42 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

. . . . 

If the FAQ did create a game term fir targeted, Kirai can deal vengeance damage when hit with a blast off of a model she use Protected(Urami) to change target. She was targeted and was dealt damage, but this seems horribly out if place in the rules.

Not illogical from a story point of view though. Kirai was targeted by a Guild Captain(?) and Francis took the hit for her, then Kirai (the original target) extracted Vengeance.

Or from a real life perspective, someone throws a water balloon at you, hits someone else, but you get splashed - you'd still take revenge. Well you might be very nice and wouldn't, but I would.

But I don't disagree that the rules could do with some cleaning up.

8 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

That's not what's happening. The FAQ is basically just turning "targeted" into a game term. In this case it means whatever was chosen by the attacking model in step 3 is what was targeted. Anything that changes the target after that does change the target, but the new target was never "targeted" by the attacker.

Basically: "to target" (verb) is not a synonym of "the target" (noun) and so are different terms?

7 hours ago, MajorUndead said:

. . .

The title seems very beast oriented.

. . . 

And hands out adversary (beast) rather than adversary (apex) . . . .

7 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think the FAQ was trying to address a timing issue more than what “targets” vs “targeted” means. Considering that the ability doesn’t trigger until after damage is dealt, the Gwisin is the current target of the action while taking damage. So it was still targeted by the action, just not “targeted” for the sake of an ability which only triggers in the declare targets step, like terrifying. I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

Could well be the correct interpretation. However - I think "trying to address" is the problem there. Unfortunately/or deliberately they wrote that the model taking the hit is "not targeted . . .". So I would argue it is the other way around, what needs to be proved is that the model, by choosing to become the target, was targeted. And yes that does lead to a weird situation, but it isn't something that is irreconcilable. It isn't as bad as the whole "another" saga, which I think the vast majority of us thought could not have been intended, but was what was written at the time.   

I would say the FAQ is clear on Vengeance (model not targeted, no Vengeance) but arguable for Manipulative, which as you say uses the term target instead.

I guess the difference between the use of the different words targeted and target are a problem here. FAQ is pretty clear that the model Taking the Hit etc. becomes the target, but isn't targeted. Maybe the FAQ could have been written in a way they didn't intend - we've seen it before (another springs to mind) and both Vengeance and Manipulative should work the same way as the VWS has ruled.

Alternatively, Wyrd meant to differentiate between abilities that trigger because of the process of choosing the target (like terrifying or maybe Vengeance) which is a deliberate act by the opposing model (targeted), and abilities that trigger because of some innate quality of the model being affected (like black blood).

Edit to add: your point about the verb vs noun versions of target is interesting though. "I target this model" can produce targeted in the past tense, while "I choose to become the target" cannot.

1 hour ago, 4thstringer said:

I didn't see a thread about bayhoff, so I am starting one here.  Let's hear your thoughts and experiences.

I tried him tonight and he did well for me, though I failed to really use the pillars well. That will take some practice I think.

 

 

The blue sub-forum has one. But they don't have a cool nickname for him. Pfft. Now when they adopt this superior nickname they'll have to work out whether he should be ArcbayHoff or BayarcHoff.

3 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, there's plenty of spirited discussions on the internet about it already, so I have no further comments.

Other than the existence of all these discussions (and the clear intent of Waldo's Weekly that it DOES work) suggests to me they'd ideally address it (either in design if it doesn't work with the rules, or FAQ eventually).

If we believed their marketing we'd be seeing all in Keyword themey Guild lists being taken everywhere too. But you are right, there does seem to be a disconnect between what might have been intended and how the rules interact. I doubt they can change Vengeance at this point, but if the point of this thread is to make changes before release, what if it read "If this model was the target and took damage from an action, after resolving the action the attacking model suffers +1 damage." Not how Wyrd would normally write abilities like this, but I would imagine this would clearly mean the Vengeance ability is triggered on the eventual target of the action. 

2 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

I would interpret the FAQ the other way actually RAW. From the FAQ. "However, some effects may change the target of the Action, in which case that new model is not targeted and as such those effects aren’t generated a second time. " I see where you are coming from, but this seems pretty black-and-white - that statement is not dependent on anything I can see. Strangely we seem to end up in a situation where neither model applies Vengence. The new target is not targeted, and Vengence specifically requires the model to be targeted, rather than to become the target. FAQ says it isn't. And Vengance requires damage, and the first model is not taking damage.

Edit: This is probably a good question for the rules forum, there are other variations on this theme.

On 8/19/2021 at 6:47 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

There is some disagreement on whether the take the hit/vengeance combo works in light of the take the hit FAQ.

I think it does because I think the FAQ is about timing, not about targeting, but would be good to get that clarified before Gwisin release.

Edit: apparently Waldo's weekly implies it works, but that is hardly ironclad:

On the Malifaux table, these 6 Soulstone Incorporeal models will help keep nearby friendlies alive with Take the Hit and will make opponents question whether their attacks are worth the risk, thanks to Vengeance +2.

I would interpret the FAQ the other way actually RAW. From the FAQ. "However, some effects may change the target of the Action, in which case that new model is not targeted and as such those effects aren’t generated a second time. " I see where you are coming from, but this seems pretty black-and-white - that statement is not dependent on anything I can see. Strangely we seem to end up in a situation where neither model applies Vengence. The new target is not targeted, and Vengence specifically requires the model to be targeted, rather than to become the target. FAQ says it isn't. And Vengance requires damage, and the first model is not taking damage.

4 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

You can't look at enemy discard piles, but the information is open I believe.

(Everything in the rules is open unless it explicitly says otherwise).

Was just reading the rules to follow up this point

So yes - cards in the conflict are public knowledge and all discarded cards must be revealed (can't discard two and your opponent only gets to see the top one.)

Then noticed this:

Cards removed from the game: "When doing so, the Fate Card is set aside face up". It does not mention going into a pile of some sort - so does that mean that all removed cards must be face up in a row or similar so that you can see all of them??? Asking for a friend who plays dreamer against me . . . .